For years, the political narrative regarding the technology sector was simple: Silicon Valley versus Washington. But in the race for New York’s 12th Congressional District, a new, more fractious reality has emerged. The tech industry is no longer a political monolith; it has splintered into warring ideological factions willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to crush their rivals. At the center of this storm is Alex Bores, a New York Assemblymember and former Palantir engineer, whose candidacy has become a proxy war between the “AI safety” camp and the “accelerationist” deregulation movement.
The financial scale of this conflict is staggering. According to recent filings, over $145 million has flowed into rival super PACs, transforming a local congressional seat into a national referendum on the future of artificial intelligence governance. On one side stands Anthropic, the AI heavyweight that recently injected $20 million into groups favoring regulation. On the other stands a coalition of venture capitalists and executives, including Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, and OpenAI’s Greg Brockman, who have amassed a war chest of over $125 million to oppose candidates they view as obstacles to innovation.
Who are the power brokers behind the spending?
To understand the ferocity of the attacks in NY-12, one must follow the money. The conflict is primarily being fought through two super PACs representing opposing philosophies on AI risk.
Supporting Bores is “Public First Action,” a super PAC heavily funded by Anthropic. This group, led by Brad Carson of Americans for Responsible Innovation, argues that unchecked AI development poses systemic risks. Its affiliate, the “Jobs and Democracy PAC,” has already deployed $450,000 to support Bores, positioning him as a thoughtful technocrat capable of legislating complex safety protocols.
Opposing him is “Leading the Future,” a massive super PAC backed by the leadership of Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) and OpenAI. This group views strict regulation as an existential threat to American technological dominance. Through its Democratic arm, “Think Big,” this faction has spent over $1.1 million attacking Bores. The disparity in spending—$1.1 million against Bores versus $450,000 in support—highlights the aggressive posture of the deregulation camp as they attempt to make an example of pro-safety candidates.
What is the RAISE Act and why is it the target?
The catalyst for this spending is not merely Bores’ candidacy, but his legislative record. Bores authored the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act, a piece of legislation that mandates safety disclosures and third-party audits for large AI models. The bill represents exactly what the accelerationist faction fears: a state-level regulatory framework that could force transparency on private developers.
The path of the RAISE Act illustrates the intensity of the lobbying efforts involved. While the bill was signed into law by New York Governor Kathy Hochul in late 2025, it was significantly weakened before reaching her desk. Intense industry pressure resulted in reduced penalties and extended reporting timelines. Despite these concessions, the mere existence of the law has made Bores a target. Josh Vlasto, a spokesperson for Leading the Future, characterized Bores’ legislation as “ideological and politically motivated legislation that would handcuff… the entire country’s ability to lead on AI.”
Are the attacks actually about AI policy?
Curiously, while the motivation for the attacks is rooted in AI policy, the messaging presented to voters is not. The “Think Big” PAC has largely avoided debating the merits of the RAISE Act or AI safety protocols in its advertisements. Instead, the group has focused its $1.1 million barrage on Bores’ past employment at Palantir, a data analytics firm with government contracts.
The attack ads attempt to link Bores to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), leveraging the controversial reputation of his former employer to erode his support among Democratic primary voters. This tactic reveals a cynical calculation: complex debates about algorithmic audits do not move voters, but emotional appeals regarding immigration enforcement do.
Bores has responded by framing the election as a defense of democratic independence against oligarchic influence. “Right-wing billionaires think they can buy this congressional seat,” Bores stated in response to the ads. “They’re attacking him because he will protect our rights.” Meanwhile, Anthropic has publicly defended its political involvement, warning in a blog post that “vast resources have flowed to political organizations that oppose” safety measures, necessitating their own financial counter-offensive.
Why It Matters
The outcome of the NY-12 race will signal whether Silicon Valley capital can successfully veto regulatory candidates by outspending them. If Bores is defeated, it will likely chill state-level efforts across the country to regulate AI, clearing the path for the “light-touch” federal framework favored by Andreessen and OpenAI. Conversely, a victory for Bores would prove that the “safety” faction has enough political weight to protect its legislative allies, potentially emboldening other states to adopt their own versions of the RAISE Act despite industry threats.
![Illustration related to Silicon Valley AI Regulation Battle: The $145M War [Report]](https://bytewire.press/wp-content/uploads/bytewire-images/2026/02/silicon-valleys-civil-war-ny-12-ai-pac-battle-c01e28ca35.webp)
![Diagram related to Silicon Valley AI Regulation Battle: The $145M War [Report]](https://bytewire.press/wp-content/uploads/bytewire-images/2026/02/silicon-valleys-civil-war-ny-12-ai-pac-battle-019585765a.webp)
